Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Game Over - Mafia Victory!

Moderators: Zoomzip, Telleo, bkbkbk, condude1, sjg11

Re: Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Night 2

Postby justy » 17 Jan 2017, 20:17

When I was reading EoD2 when it happened, I was wondering who'd I vote if I were in game. I probably would have voted Smith, because there was good reasons to vote him. At the same time, though, I did think that scum smith would have stopped posting earlier instead of making plans for town before his inevitable-feeling lynch. Also, Smith had big part in forming the town plan for night actions, which was also reason to town-read him. So I was quite torn with my read on him and it felt like so was several others. That's why I think that scum being able to keep Smith alive would have been really happy, as discussion probably would have stayed on smith for D3 as well.
User avatar
justy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: 05 Sep 2011, 20:10
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1055
All-game rating: 1054
Timezone: GMT+2

Re: Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Night 2

Postby Crunkus_old » 17 Jan 2017, 20:27

justy wrote:
I do agree with your logic. However, I think that looking for inconsistencies requires enough shared history with that player, or at least reading enough past games. I've played twice with Jordan and he was scum both times. So I don't really know what his town game looks like, and my attempts on behavioral read on Jordan (I used this reason also in my previous game with him to scum-read him) are based on assumption that when I meet town Jordan for the first time, I might notice some difference.


Nobody said it was easy, only that saying something is consistent with scum play doesn't actually demonstrate anything. I've used the letter "t" in my posts, EVERY TIME I'VE PLAYED AS SCUM, without exception. It's a terrible indicator of my alignment, for obvious reasons. Nobody is saying using the letter "t" is the same as any other behaviour. The point is, justifying a read solely based on consistency with scum play for that player is a logical fallacy. It really isn't about that unless someone is contending that it ISN'T consistent with their scum behaviour and you are attempting to demonstate that contention to be false.

Saying, yeah, but making a logical case is hard, doesn't mean an illogical case means anything more. It just means this game is hard. We knew that.

justy wrote:The behaviour that caught my attention was the increasing amount of apathy and more passive stance he took after Happy was in trouble, and during D2. My experiences from Big Medium Small 2 and Fable 8 have led me to see scum Jordan as someone who starts with intensity and then when things start to go bad for scum, he gets really passive. I'm now re-reading Jordan from this game and hopefully can be more specific.


What do you mean by "apathy" and "passive stance" specifically? Where did you get that impression? I'm trying to relate to your process of "noticing" that.

Do you notice differential investment in game events to be something in general (not just with Jordan) that you've noticed owing to variables other than alignment?

justy wrote:
Crunkus wrote:Why was it good? It was wrong. How do you account for that?


I think your case was consistent. I felt that your reasons to scum-read Smith were good and that the actions and interactions you pointed out fitted the events on thread. I also felt that Smith being scum was good explanation for things you pointed out.


I don't even get the impression from reading this response you understood what my case was. What do you mean by it was consistent? What about consistency made it seem sincere coming from me? Do you expect less consistency from me generally as scum?

For what things? You could have literally said this without reading yesterday. Part of what we talked about with smith was transparency. Given you're down with that...perhaps you could be more transparent?

justy wrote:So even if the case was wrong, it didn't seem to be coming from scummy place.


So, in your experience, scum crunkus isn't consistent and generally calls people out for things they don't seem like they are really doing?

I'm having a hard time buying all this as a reason for you sincerely town reading me. I mean, there are far better reasons out there to rightly suspect I'm town this game, these don't even come close. People seem in my experience to be pretty reluctant to offer town reads on me...you seem...a lot more eager on some pretty loose material.

justy wrote:What I remember of Keir's posts from D2 was him requesting both Smith and others to start talking other things than Smith. My feeling is that he didn't post much about other things himself. I'd have to check if that's true, though, but that's how I remember Keir's involvement in D2.


So, you're not even sure if that's accurate. OK. I look forward to your exploration of this issue.

justy wrote:
Do you sincerely feel the last remaining scum, having just lost Happymeal in that particular way, sincerely hoped to affect a change in the inertia of yesterday to leave the game paralyzed? If so, how strongly do you feel that scenario is likely?


I sincerely feel that. However, I've learned in last few games to tone down my paranoia and drop some of the most wild scum scenarios. I think that this scenario might be one of those. It would require quite experienced scum to do that. But I want to check if I find some indications of this happening. I think that if it did happen, scum must have tried to switch lynch target quite early D2. I doubt they'd try to do that later during D2, as Smith lynch became more certain and scum would probably have realized the futility of changing the target and therefore wouldn't have drawn attention to themselves at that point anymore.


Wow. Okay. You sincerely felt that after reading the day. It's certainly an interesting perspective. I don't really understand how you arrived at that conclusion, and I hope you'll help me relate better.
(sigh)
Crunkus_old
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Night 2

Postby Crunkus_old » 17 Jan 2017, 20:28

justy wrote:When I was reading EoD2 when it happened, I was wondering who'd I vote if I were in game. I probably would have voted Smith, because there was good reasons to vote him. At the same time, though, I did think that scum smith would have stopped posting earlier instead of making plans for town before his inevitable-feeling lynch. Also, Smith had big part in forming the town plan for night actions, which was also reason to town-read him. So I was quite torn with my read on him and it felt like so was several others. That's why I think that scum being able to keep Smith alive would have been really happy, as discussion probably would have stayed on smith for D3 as well.



When did you start reading the thread, specifically?
(sigh)
Crunkus_old
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Night 2

Postby justy » 17 Jan 2017, 21:52

Crunkus wrote:
justy wrote:
I do agree with your logic. However, I think that looking for inconsistencies requires enough shared history with that player, or at least reading enough past games. I've played twice with Jordan and he was scum both times. So I don't really know what his town game looks like, and my attempts on behavioral read on Jordan (I used this reason also in my previous game with him to scum-read him) are based on assumption that when I meet town Jordan for the first time, I might notice some difference.


Nobody said it was easy, only that saying something is consistent with scum play doesn't actually demonstrate anything. I've used the letter "t" in my posts, EVERY TIME I'VE PLAYED AS SCUM, without exception. It's a terrible indicator of my alignment, for obvious reasons. Nobody is saying using the letter "t" is the same as any other behaviour. The point is, justifying a read solely based on consistency with scum play for that player is a logical fallacy. It really isn't about that unless someone is contending that it ISN'T consistent with their scum behaviour and you are attempting to demonstate that contention to be false.

Saying, yeah, but making a logical case is hard, doesn't mean an illogical case means anything more. It just means this game is hard. We knew that.


I wouldn't call behavior consistent with scum play as meaningless as using letter t. It's a good starting point for focusing my attention.

Crunkus wrote:
justy wrote:The behaviour that caught my attention was the increasing amount of apathy and more passive stance he took after Happy was in trouble, and during D2. My experiences from Big Medium Small 2 and Fable 8 have led me to see scum Jordan as someone who starts with intensity and then when things start to go bad for scum, he gets really passive. I'm now re-reading Jordan from this game and hopefully can be more specific.


What do you mean by "apathy" and "passive stance" specifically? Where did you get that impression? I'm trying to relate to your process of "noticing" that.

Do you notice differential investment in game events to be something in general (not just with Jordan) that you've noticed owing to variables other than alignment?


Good question. IIRC "apathy" and "passive stance" first caught my attention when Jordan was making caveats on Telleo's night plan during D1. Also later, on D2, when he was making his case on Smith and defending that case. I hopefully can detail this idea out when I finish my Jordan re-read tomorrow.

And yes, it's possible that this isn't related to Jordan's alignment. If Jordan is town here, I definetely have no reason to use this behaviour to scum-read him in future games.

Crunkus wrote:
justy wrote:I think your case was consistent. I felt that your reasons to scum-read Smith were good and that the actions and interactions you pointed out fitted the events on thread. I also felt that Smith being scum was good explanation for things you pointed out.


I don't even get the impression from reading this response you understood what my case was. What do you mean by it was consistent? What about consistency made it seem sincere coming from me? Do you expect less consistency from me generally as scum?

For what things? You could have literally said this without reading yesterday. Part of what we talked about with smith was transparency. Given you're down with that...perhaps you could be more transparent?


I understood your case to be about Smith't playing style here, where he refused to engage into discussion with you because in past you have been able to catch him as scum during those discussions. Also, you suspected Smith to be Happys scum chum because Happymeal and Smith didn't discuss Happy's slip while Happy was discussing it with you (and Sjg IIRC). I think that those reasons to scum-read Smith were consistent with what happened in thread.

I don't know what to expect from you as scum, to be honest. I've seen you as scum once, when I was scum as well and you subbed in for final day. That was a bit different situation. IIRC you didn't really build a case in that game but made an act of being displeased with EaH and created a lot of confusion so that we could get the final mislynch through. But yeah, perhaps I shouldn't town-read you for making good case, as you are highly regarded as scum player. However, that's where I'm currently at regarding you.

Crunkus wrote:
justy wrote:So even if the case was wrong, it didn't seem to be coming from scummy place.


So, in your experience, scum crunkus isn't consistent and generally calls people out for things they don't seem like they are really doing?

I'm having a hard time buying all this as a reason for you sincerely town reading me. I mean, there are far better reasons out there to rightly suspect I'm town this game, these don't even come close. People seem in my experience to be pretty reluctant to offer town reads on me...you seem...a lot more eager on some pretty loose material.

justy wrote:What I remember of Keir's posts from D2 was him requesting both Smith and others to start talking other things than Smith. My feeling is that he didn't post much about other things himself. I'd have to check if that's true, though, but that's how I remember Keir's involvement in D2.


So, you're not even sure if that's accurate. OK. I look forward to your exploration of this issue.


I'll get back to it, hopefully tomorrow.

Crunkus wrote:
justy wrote:
Do you sincerely feel the last remaining scum, having just lost Happymeal in that particular way, sincerely hoped to affect a change in the inertia of yesterday to leave the game paralyzed? If so, how strongly do you feel that scenario is likely?


I sincerely feel that. However, I've learned in last few games to tone down my paranoia and drop some of the most wild scum scenarios. I think that this scenario might be one of those. It would require quite experienced scum to do that. But I want to check if I find some indications of this happening. I think that if it did happen, scum must have tried to switch lynch target quite early D2. I doubt they'd try to do that later during D2, as Smith lynch became more certain and scum would probably have realized the futility of changing the target and therefore wouldn't have drawn attention to themselves at that point anymore.


Wow. Okay. You sincerely felt that after reading the day. It's certainly an interesting perspective. I don't really understand how you arrived at that conclusion, and I hope you'll help me relate better.


I probably arrived to that conclusion because I don't remember if I've ever seen town to be as paralyzed at it seemed to be D2 from outside perspective. So I felt that the most devious thing scum could do would be to keep that paralysis ongoing, by saving Smith for D3 and letting the situation to stay as bad.

Crunkus wrote:When did you start reading the thread, specifically?


I've been following the game from it's beginning.
User avatar
justy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: 05 Sep 2011, 20:10
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1055
All-game rating: 1054
Timezone: GMT+2

Re: Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Night 2

Postby justy » 17 Jan 2017, 21:58

More tomorrow.
User avatar
justy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: 05 Sep 2011, 20:10
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1055
All-game rating: 1054
Timezone: GMT+2

Re: Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Night 2

Postby sjg11 » 17 Jan 2017, 22:25

Hi guys, sorry busy essay writing day. I will return with useful comments tomorrow. To be honest I don't really want to post after having written essay.
One of the people in charge of the Mafia forum.
Telleo wrote:The mafia forum, to them,
Sir SJG's known as a gem,
He writes a good game,
and runs it the same,
Oh what a perfect GM!

Come on Arsenal!
User avatar
sjg11
 
Posts: 18325
Joined: 24 Dec 2010, 15:30
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (908)
All-game rating: (899)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Night 2

Postby Crunkus_old » 17 Jan 2017, 23:50

justy wrote:
I wouldn't call behavior consistent with scum play as meaningless as using letter t. It's a good starting point for focusing my attention.


But that's just it.

Using the letter t is a behaviour that qualifies as "consistent with scum play" better than most behaviours people assert are consistent with someone's scum play. It qualifies because people tend to exhibit this beheaviour as scum, without exception for the most part.

Therefore, if the justification "it is consistent with this person's scum play" is enough, in and of itself to indicate a behaviour is ALSO indicative of alignment in even a small way...then we should be able to apply that to the behaviour of using a t in posts.

That's because simply being consistent with one explanation doesn't in and of itself mean anything in a general context.

If you were to add, and it's not consistent with this person's town play....then you'd have something. You could no longer use say, the behaviour of using a t in posting.

It's a trivial exercise to look at 2 or 3 games where someone has been scum and find similarities to any given game they play...as either alignment. That's because...well for one...it's the same person doing the posting. You can say use of those smiley things are consistent with sf's scum play...and you'd be right. But you couldn't say they are inconsistent with her town play.

You can imply there's more to it because it SOUNDS different in terms of the type of behaviour...but unless you are offering more justification than simply saying "consistent with scum behaviour" you are justifying nothing logically. If science worked like that, we'd still be in the medieval era.

You didn't justify your read except to say it was vaguely consistent with scum play. That's objectively not a rational justification. Maybe you have other unstated reasons, but you haven't shared them. It is one of those things that FEELS right though, isn't it? But the fact is, unless the behaviour isn't really exhibited when the player is town...then you're basically showing evidence that the same person tends to do the same things whenever they play.

If you are arguing something more, that it isn't what you expect from their town behaviour, if it isn't what you've witnessed from their town behaviour...great. But if I see a player twice as scum, and notice each time he plays he...tends to get frustrated....it may seem right to say...ahah it's consistent with his scum play...it means he might be scum.

Well, he might be scum. We knew that according to the game set up rules. That doesn't tell us anything new. The question is whether it gives us a reason to believe he is...whether it is indicative of anything. If you admittedly have nothing to say about his town play at all, then you objectively can't use that kind of data. You can make an argument that a behaviour is universally scum indicative. You can make an argument about that player's projected expected town behaviour (or even just go and look). But you can't say...look...it's consistent with scum behaviour...ergo...something to look at...because you're just demonstrably logically incorrect.

I'm obviously not arguing that any given behaviour consistent with scum play is just as meaningless as using the letter t. That doesn't dismiss my point to point that out. If you make an argument that "scum play consistent" actually means something, ON ITS OWN, then using the letter "t" in a post...qualifies probably better than the behaviour you are talking about...given it is just about universally true of every scum player who has ever played forum mafia, not dropped immediately, and didn't have a keyboard with a very specific deficit. How many "scum consistent behaviours" can you say THAT about?

justy wrote:
Crunkus wrote:
justy wrote:The behaviour that caught my attention was the increasing amount of apathy and more passive stance he took after Happy was in trouble, and during D2. My experiences from Big Medium Small 2 and Fable 8 have led me to see scum Jordan as someone who starts with intensity and then when things start to go bad for scum, he gets really passive. I'm now re-reading Jordan from this game and hopefully can be more specific.


What do you mean by "apathy" and "passive stance" specifically? Where did you get that impression? I'm trying to relate to your process of "noticing" that.


Did you notice an initial intensity on day one? Can you refer me to a specific situation with a link? Would you be surprised if as town for other unrelated reasons there would be variable levels of intensity in Jordan's play?

justy wrote:Do you notice differential investment in game events to be something in general (not just with Jordan) that you've noticed owing to variables other than alignment?


Good question. IIRC "apathy" and "passive stance" first caught my attention when Jordan was making caveats on Telleo's night plan during D1. Also later, on D2, when he was making his case on Smith and defending that case. I hopefully can detail this idea out when I finish my Jordan re-read tomorrow.

And yes, it's possible that this isn't related to Jordan's alignment. If Jordan is town here, I definetely have no reason to use this behaviour to scum-read him in future games.


But that's not what I asked. You are essentially citing a differential investment level that you say coincided with the happymeal event as a reason for a scum tell.

In general, I have a hard time believing you don't see widely divergent investment levels at different times of day, times in the game, owing to all kinds of factors. It's an expected thread event in forum mafia. It's easily explained by so many factors both in and out of game. I mean Jordan's not the only one to show differential investment at different points in the game. If you then decided to craft a narrative out of what was happening before and after they left you could make a similar argument for a lot of people in this game. Was Jordan the only person not very active during that time? You could just as easily argue this as a reason to suspect you. If you know for a fact you are town, and that other factors were responsible for your position's thread behaviour around the event, then why does that ring as such as scum tell for you?
justy wrote:
Crunkus wrote:
justy wrote:I think your case was consistent. I felt that your reasons to scum-read Smith were good and that the actions and interactions you pointed out fitted the events on thread. I also felt that Smith being scum was good explanation for things you pointed out.


I don't even get the impression from reading this response you understood what my case was. What do you mean by it was consistent? What about consistency made it seem sincere coming from me? Do you expect less consistency from me generally as scum?

For what things? You could have literally said this without reading yesterday. Part of what we talked about with smith was transparency. Given you're down with that...perhaps you could be more transparent?


I understood your case to be about Smith't playing style here, where he refused to engage into discussion with you because in past you have been able to catch him as scum during those discussions. Also, you suspected Smith to be Happys scum chum because Happymeal and Smith didn't discuss Happy's slip while Happy was discussing it with you (and Sjg IIRC). I think that those reasons to scum-read Smith were consistent with what happened in thread.

I don't know what to expect from you as scum, to be honest. I've seen you as scum once, when I was scum as well and you subbed in for final day. That was a bit different situation. IIRC you didn't really build a case in that game but made an act of being displeased with EaH and created a lot of confusion so that we could get the final mislynch through. But yeah, perhaps I shouldn't town-read you for making good case, as you are highly regarded as scum player. However, that's where I'm currently at regarding you.


It doesn't sound frankly like you really followed the case at all. Also, I don't understand what that has to do with the term "consistent". Consistent to what?
You seem to follow the Happyspew argument, but nothing else. You say it is consistent...but it's not clear how that term applies to your understanding of the situation as explained, nor is it evident how my consistency is sufficient to make you feel that I'm town.

Again, I'd ask you to directly answer this question, as scum do you expect me to only make inconsistent arguments and point out things that don't really seem like they are happening? It's a straight forward question given the justification you offered for reading me town. I'm asking it again.


justy wrote:
Crunkus wrote:
justy wrote:So even if the case was wrong, it didn't seem to be coming from scummy place.


So, in your experience, scum crunkus isn't consistent and generally calls people out for things they don't seem like they are really doing?

I'm having a hard time buying all this as a reason for you sincerely town reading me. I mean, there are far better reasons out there to rightly suspect I'm town this game, these don't even come close. People seem in my experience to be pretty reluctant to offer town reads on me...you seem...a lot more eager on some pretty loose material.


I don't see an answer to the question here when I asked it earlier. Let me know if I missed it.

justy wrote:
Do you sincerely feel the last remaining scum, having just lost Happymeal in that particular way, sincerely hoped to affect a change in the inertia of yesterday to leave the game paralyzed? If so, how strongly do you feel that scenario is likely?


I sincerely feel that. However, I've learned in last few games to tone down my paranoia and drop some of the most wild scum scenarios. I think that this scenario might be one of those. It would require quite experienced scum to do that. But I want to check if I find some indications of this happening. I think that if it did happen, scum must have tried to switch lynch target quite early D2. I doubt they'd try to do that later during D2, as Smith lynch became more certain and scum would probably have realized the futility of changing the target and therefore wouldn't have drawn attention to themselves at that point anymore.
Crunkus wrote:Wow. Okay. You sincerely felt that after reading the day. It's certainly an interesting perspective. I don't really understand how you arrived at that conclusion, and I hope you'll help me relate better.


I probably arrived to that conclusion because I don't remember if I've ever seen town to be as paralyzed at it seemed to be D2 from outside perspective. So I felt that the most devious thing scum could do would be to keep that paralysis ongoing, by saving Smith for D3 and letting the situation to stay as bad.


I don't remember the town being paralyzed. You say you were a fan of the case and have been following along since the game began before you knew you were subbing in for your present position.

As such, from my perspective, it seemed like a town getting the proper thing done. I don't see how you watched the town working together to get a strong majority on a lynch candidate you say you yourself favoured as "paralyzed town". Seems an odd perspective. We don't have to think alike, but I don't follow how you think that way. I don't get the thought stream, I'm capable of doing that with reasoning I disagree with.

I mean, were we "paralyzed" day one?

From your stated perspective, day one and day two should have essentially read the same way. Neither involved tons of exploration in other directions (though more than people generally give credit for...and some of it ignored by the people complaining there wasn't any).

Also, give you read it...thought "paralyzed"...I still don't see how given your read of the thread as "paralyzed" that you inferred that as scum you would expect the behaviour of working against that kind of inertia, given the scum's position, and see to it that it was overcome and smith was saved.

That's really rather hard for me to grok. I mean...you used the word paralyzed. You act like that's something you need to "look for"....I mean you read it...if someone were attempting that herculean task seriously...there's only a few people that qualify, and once again, your own spot comes up...so why is this such a theory for you? It doesn't seem to follow given what you should know about at least one of the player's working hard...though quite obviously not in a way that would predictably lead to a different outcome. Distancing from a bad lynch, sure. Role playing? Sure. But sincerely trying to affect the outcome to keep smith around longer?

Also, you thought smith was scum until he flipped. You said you came to this conclusion when you saw the thread paralyzed. That's before he flipped. You don't characterize happymeal's d1 as paralyzed.

This suggests you knew smith was town at some point during d2 to me, and you haven't indicated ever believing any such thing in real time.


So...huh. Lots to learn.
(sigh)
Crunkus_old
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Night 2

Postby shadowface » 18 Jan 2017, 00:20

Crunkus wrote:
shadowfriend1 wrote:Thanks for taking the time to say so much. I look forward to getting to understand your process in detail today. I hope you extend that courtesy to Telleo, who you seem to believe is town. She's been asking some very reasonable questions that given your understanding of her as town, are fairly easily explained as a teammate trying to get to the bottom of your alignment rather than your stated conclusion of a townie who actually thinks you are evil and have "evil motives". I don't know what you meant by evil motives. If you meant in game terms, then your conclusion that she is town just means that's clearly what she is doing...and its your job to assist her in that task not to be surprised she's doing it. That's what got smith killed. He forgot that has was playing a team game with players on his team trying to make the best they could out of his alignment. He decided it was more productive to lecture them and deride them for reading him poorly rather than take personal responsibility for anything and meet his teammates half way with a productive attitude. It's not something I thought he would do, as the last times I'd played with him AS WOLF he did a better job of that than he did here. I've seen him play before as a much more productive member of the team. He's apparently got a bee in his bonnet about something, and maybe one day he'll get rid of it, but that's up to him.

But the point is, this business of pushing back on Telleo doesn't make anymore sense for you to do as town than it did for smith. It's anti-town behaviour particularly when you say you believe the person you are talking to is town.

Good point. Infighting does nothing for the town except create mislynches and distract from the actual purpose of the game. Telleo, I retract my criticism of your play.
Crunkus, I'll respond to your comments on my case tonight when I'm not in class.
The player formerly known as shadowfriend1
Proud bearer of the Angle of Unnecessary Overshoot
Previously cursed by the Talisman of Greater Scumminess :twisted:, now an innocent, reformed townsperson
User avatar
shadowface
 
Posts: 5524
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 06:26
Location: Toronto
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (892)
All-game rating: (892)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Night 2

Postby Telleo » 18 Jan 2017, 00:27

shadowfriend1 wrote:
Crunkus wrote:
shadowfriend1 wrote:Thanks for taking the time to say so much. I look forward to getting to understand your process in detail today. I hope you extend that courtesy to Telleo, who you seem to believe is town. She's been asking some very reasonable questions that given your understanding of her as town, are fairly easily explained as a teammate trying to get to the bottom of your alignment rather than your stated conclusion of a townie who actually thinks you are evil and have "evil motives". I don't know what you meant by evil motives. If you meant in game terms, then your conclusion that she is town just means that's clearly what she is doing...and its your job to assist her in that task not to be surprised she's doing it. That's what got smith killed. He forgot that has was playing a team game with players on his team trying to make the best they could out of his alignment. He decided it was more productive to lecture them and deride them for reading him poorly rather than take personal responsibility for anything and meet his teammates half way with a productive attitude. It's not something I thought he would do, as the last times I'd played with him AS WOLF he did a better job of that than he did here. I've seen him play before as a much more productive member of the team. He's apparently got a bee in his bonnet about something, and maybe one day he'll get rid of it, but that's up to him.

But the point is, this business of pushing back on Telleo doesn't make anymore sense for you to do as town than it did for smith. It's anti-town behaviour particularly when you say you believe the person you are talking to is town.

Good point. Infighting does nothing for the town except create mislynches and distract from the actual purpose of the game. Telleo, I retract my criticism of your play.
Crunkus, I'll respond to your comments on my case tonight when I'm not in class.


No, that's not really good enough. I need to know what made you react that way. Please actually answer my post, don't just say "nevermind, I didn't mean it."
Harb wrote:Telleo is gender-bent Chaucer from A Knight's Tale

Moderator of the Mafia Subforum!
Proud Owner of a limited-edition Medal of Idiotic Valor.
"Russian Roulette is not the same without a gun." -Lady Gaga.
Third time's the charm.
User avatar
Telleo
 
Posts: 5473
Joined: 03 Jun 2013, 17:39
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (951)
All-game rating: (908)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Push and Pull Mafia Game Thread Night 2

Postby Crunkus_old » 18 Jan 2017, 00:30

For the record I also want to understand your sincere understanding of telleo's position toward you at the time. I also want to know if, how, and why that has changed. Thanks 91st.
(sigh)
Crunkus_old
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Game Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests